The issue is that is has been too effective, especially for the level of development of the country, so that China is hitting a "first world problem" before having first world resources.
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/629361870/despite-the-end-of-...
Now, the _facts_ are that the policy did have a real, significant impact. And that has benefited mankind as a whole.
But, OK, let's say it was useless... I cannot be said to have been disastrous, then, can it?
What problem could justify such an abhorrent intrusion into a person's life?
1980 - 4.4 billion
2019 - 7.7 billion
This has a massive impact on our environmental footprint and on climate change.
But, right, let's not intrude into a person's life, that would be abhorrent...
Strange days when one is downvoted for criticizing China's immoral and brutal policy that violated the most basic of human rights.
The reason why you're being downvoted is because the One-Child policy is actually quite popular in China. A Pew Global survey in 2008 found 76% of Chinese approve of the One-Child Policy (Scroll to Additional Findings section in link cited).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/07/22/the-chinese-celebrate-th...
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Mandatory_con...
> As part of the policy, women were required to have a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) surgically installed after having a first child, and to be sterilized by tubal ligation after having a second child. From 1980 to 2014, 324 million Chinese women were fitted with IUDs in this way and 108 million were sterilized. Women who refused these procedures – which many resented – could lose their government employment and their children could lose access to education or health services. The IUDs installed in this way were modified such that they could not be removed manually, but only through surgery.
It would certainly be sloppy logic to merge the statistical information with the poll data. Nevertheless, doing so reveals something not very surprising and illustrative of human nature: you can always find a majority in favor of imposing a draconian restriction on "everyone else." :)
The issue is personal rights vs. general good.
In the end an individual's liberty ends when his actions are having a serious negative impact on the community.